The study sought to compare the efficacy of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy with cyanoacrylate glue (EIS-CYA) vs EIS-CYA plus a radiologic intervention (RI) (either transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration) for secondary prophylaxis in patients with liver cirrhosis who presented with acute variceal bleeding from cardiofundal varices. Primary outcome measure was gastric varix (GV) rebleed rates at 1 year.

Consecutive cirrhosis patients with acute variceal bleeding from cardiofundal varices were randomized into 2 arms (45 in each) after primary hemostasis by EIS-CYA. In the endoscopic intervention (EI) arm, EIS-CYA was repeated at regular intervals (1, 3, 6, and 12 months), while in the RI arm, patients underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration followed by endoscopic surveillance.

GV rebleed rates at 1 year were higher in the EI arm compared with the RI arm: 11 (24.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.9%-39.5%) vs 1 (2.2%; 95% CI, 0.1%-11.8%) (P = .004; absolute risk difference: 22.2%; 95% CI, 8.4%-36.6%). GV rebleed-related mortality in the EI arm (8 [17.8%; 95% CI, 8.0%-32.1%]) was significantly higher than in the RI arm (1 [2.2%; 0.1%-11.8%]) (P = .030; absolute risk difference: 15.6; 95% CI, 2.9%-29.2%); however, there was no difference in all-cause mortality between the 2 groups (12 [26.7%; 95% CI, 14.6%-41.9%] vs 7 [15.6%; 95% CI, 6.5%-29.5%]). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 GV-related rebleed at 1 year was 4.5.

RI for secondary prophylaxis reduces rebleeding from GV and GV rebleeding-related mortality in patients with GV hemorrhage. (CTRI/2021/02/031396).

Gastric variceal bleeding occurs less commonly than bleeding from esophageal varices (EVs), although it is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Bleeding from gastroesophageal varices type 1 (GOV1) is treated like EVs. In contrast, other forms of gastric variceal bleeding, including gastroesophageal varices type 2 (GOV2) and isolated gastric varices types 1 (IGV1) and 2 (IGV2), are treated with varying endoscopic approaches. Nonendoscopic methods include transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO). This technology report focuses on endoscopic management of gastric varices (GVs).

The MEDLINE database was searched through August 2022 for relevant articles by using key words such as gastric varices, glue, cyanoacrylate, thrombin, sclerosing agents, band ligation, topical hemostatic spray, coils, EUS, TIPS, and BRTO. The article was drafted, reviewed, and edited by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE.

Endoscopic injection with cyanoacrylate (CYA) glue has been the primary endoscopic method to treat GVs. EUS-guided angiotherapy with CYA glue and coil embolization has emerged as an alternative method enabling improved detection of GVs with a high technical success for targeting and obliterating GVs. Combining CYA glue with coil therapy allows the coil to act as a scaffold for the glue, reducing the risk of glue embolization and improving outcomes. Alternative injectates or topical treatments have been described but remain poorly studied.

The mainstay paradigm for the endoscopic management of gastric variceal bleeding is the injection of CYA glue. The published success of EUS-guided angiotherapy using CYA glue with or without embolization coils has increased our treatment armamentarium.

Bleeding from gastric varices is life-threatening, with significant rebleeding risk despite standard cyanoacrylate glue injection therapy. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided coil embolization with cyanoacrylate injection (Coil+CYA) compared with EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection alone (CYA) for the treatment of gastric varices.

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center in India, using a single-blinded, prospective, and parallel-group randomized design. A total of 50 patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to Coil+CYA or CYA. The primary outcome was clinical success (i.e. variceal obliteration). Secondary outcomes involved technical success, gastric variceal recurrence during follow-up, rebleeding episodes, reintervention, and survival.

Post-intervention, gastric variceal obliteration assessed by EUS was higher in the Coil+CYA group (100% vs. 92.3%; P = 0.49), with both groups achieving 100% technical success. Rebleeding episodes during 0-12 and 12-24 weeks were comparable in the two groups. At 12 weeks, on EUS, variceal reappearance was less common in the Coil+CYA group (12.5% vs. 19.2%; P = 0.70). Significantly fewer reinterventions were needed in the Coil+CYA group (20.8% vs. 53.8%; P = 0.03). The time to reintervention was significantly longer in the Coil+CYA group (P = 0.01), and the survival time was also longer (P = 0.04).

EUS-guided coil embolization with cyanoacrylate injection achieved superior clinical success, reducing the need for reintervention and resulting in improved survival compared with cyanoacrylate injection alone.

Practice guidelines recommend non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for primary prevention in cirrhosis patients with esophageal varices. However, there is no clear recommendation for primary prevention strategies for gastric varices, particularly GOV-2. Our objective is to investigate the incidence of initial bleeding and liver-related complications when NSBB and EVL are used for primary prevention in GOV-2.

A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from patients with GOV-2 gastric varices. Patients were divided into the NSBB group or the EVL group. Differences in the incidence of initial bleeding within 1 year, as well as the occurrence of complications such as hepatic encephalopathy and ascites, were compared between the two groups before and after adjustment for Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent risk factors for the first bleeding event.

There were 60 patients in the NSBB group and 66 patients in the EVL group. Before IPTW adjustment, there were differences between the two groups in sex, portal hypertensive gastropathy, esophageal variceal diameter, red signs, FIB-4, and MELD scores. After IPTW adjustment, these differences were balanced, with standardized mean differences (SMDs) within acceptable ranges. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed no difference in bleeding rates between the two groups before or after IPTW adjustment. After IPTW adjustment, Cox regression analysis identified esophageal variceal diameter (HR:5.59 (2.03-15.39), p < 0.001) and MELD score (HR:1.17 (1.01-1.23), p = 0.042) were independent risk factors for bleeding. NSBB treatment did not reduce the incidence of liver-related complications within one year compared to EVL.

For primary prevention of bleeding in cirrhotic patients with GOV-2, EVL does not significantly reduce initial bleeding episodes or liver-related complications compared to NSBB.

To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous transhepatic obliteration (PTO) with initial afferent vein embolization (PTO-A) and with initial efferent vein embolization (PTO-E) for gastric varices (GVs).

Consecutive patients undergoing PTO-A or PTO-E for type 1 isolated GVs or type 2 gastroesophageal varices between June 2007 and February 2023 were included. PTO-A or PTO-E was indicated when balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration failed or there was no portosystemic shunt for the retrograde transvenous approach. PTO-A was performed for patients before March 2009 and for patients with multiple efferent channels from the GVs. PTO-E was attempted for patients after April 2009. Twenty-six patients were included, of whom 18 underwent PTO-A and 8 underwent PTO-E. In 12 patients, PTO-E was attempted without success, and they underwent PTO-A instead. The primary outcome was successful complete eradication of GVs within 1 week after the procedure. The secondary outcomes were the GV recurrence-free period and overall survival after the procedure.

Technical success was achieved in all 26 patients, with complete GV eradication rates of 33.3% in PTO-A and 100% in PTO-E, significantly higher in PTO-E (P = .002). The median recurrence-free periods were 8.7 months with PTO-A and 75.1 months with PTO-E; PTO-E had a significantly longer recurrence-free period (P = .042). The median overall survival durations were 37.2 months with PTO-A and 49.9 months with PTO-E, with no significant difference (P = .955).

PTO-E had a better complete eradication rate and longer recurrence-free period than PTO-A for GVs.

Acute decompensation in cirrhotic patients signifies the onset of clinically evident events due to portal hypertension. The transition from compensated to decompensated cirrhosis involves hemodynamic changes leading to multiorgan dysfunction, managed predominantly in outpatient settings with regular monitoring. The mortality risk is elevated in decompensated patients. Therefore, diligent outpatient management should focus on regular medical follow-ups, medication adjustments, patient education, addressing emergent issues and evaluation for liver transplantation. The ultimate goal is to improve quality of life, prevent disease progression, reduce complications, and assess possible recompensation. This guide provides valuable recommendations for medical experts managing decompensated cirrhotic patients post-hospitalization.

Bleeding from gastric varices (GV) is more drastic and associated with higher mortality than that from esophageal varices. There are multiple therapeutic approaches for GV bleeding. Although endoscopic cyanoacrylate glue injection (ECGI) is recommended as the first-line management for GV bleeding worldwide, its implementation in the US is limited. We conducted a survey among health care providers to examine attitudes and practice related to GV management.

Collected data were cleaned using SPSS V24. Summary statistics and graphical analyses for continuous and categorical variables were used to describe the data. Continuous variables with a normal distribution are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

A total of 339 providers completed the survey, for a response rate of 16.95%. Nearly a quarter of respondents reported performing ECGI in patients with GV bleeding. Male healthcare providers (odds ratio [OR]: 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22-3.75, P = 0.006), transplant hepatologists (OR: 2.6, 95% CI = 1.25-4.87, P = 0.019), and those working in hospitals with liver transplantation centers (OR: 2.5, 95% CI = 1.35-4.62, P = 0.002) were more likely to perform ECGI in GV bleeding cases. However, only gender was significant in the multivariate model.

Our results indicate the underutilization of ECGI in GV patients among US endoscopists. Key hurdles are lack of training and approval from the US Food and Drug Administration.

Background and aims Cyanoacrylate glue (CAG) is the standard of care for gastric varices (GVs) but has serious complications too. The literature is scarce on determining the safe and effective amount of glue before the procedure objectively. Our study aimed to fill this gap.  Methods It was an interventional case series, from January to December 2022. Patients with GVs, in whom CAG was injected, were included. Demographic, clinical, and endoscopic data with emphasis on cumulative variceal diameter (CVD, sum of maximum diameter of each varix), the total amount of glue injected (GTotal), outcomes (technical and clinical success), and complications intra- and post-procedural) were noted. Results Among 467, 18 (4%) patients had gastric varices. Glue was injected in six (1%) patients. Five had type 2 gastro-esophageal varices (GOV2) and one had type 1 isolated gastric varix (IGV1). Four had a history of upper GI bleed. Numbers of GVs ranged between 1 and 4, sizes 0.5-2.5 cm, and CVDs between 3.5 and 5.0 cm. GTotal ranged between 2 and 4 ml, the number of aliquots was one to two, and the maximum amount of glue in each aliquot was between 2 and 3 ml. The calculated relationship between CVD and GTotal ranged was CVD minus 0.5 to 1. Clinical and technical success was achieved in all. Two patients had intra-procedural, self-subsiding bleeding, and one patient had severe abdominal pain, which subsided with analgesics. None of them had fatal complications, transfusion requirements, or prolonged hospital stays. Conclusions CVD is a potential determinant factor for the total amount of glue injected during the endotherapy of GVs to achieve favorable clinical and technical outcomes.

Acute variceal bleeding in cirrhosis represents a critical clinical event that significantly impacts patient prognosis, with mortality rates increasing further after a second episode. This underscores the need for immediate intervention and optimal prophylaxis. The creation of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been proven to be highly effective for managing esophageal variceal bleeding. However, the use of TIPS for managing cardiofundal gastric varices and ectopic varices remains debated due to their unique vascular anatomy and the limited data available. These varices, although less prevalent than esophageal varices, are complex and heterogeneous vascular shunts between the splanchnic venous system and the systemic veins. Indeed, while endoscopic therapy with tissue adhesives is widely endorsed for achieving hemostasis in active hemorrhage, there is no consensus regarding the optimal approach for secondary prophylaxis. Recent research emphasizes the efficacy of endovascular techniques over endoscopic treatments, such as TIPS and endovascular variceal embolization techniques. This review examines the use of TIPS in managing acute variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, focusing specifically on cardiofundal gastric varices and ectopic varices, discussing optimal patient care based on the latest evidence, aiming to improve outcomes for this challenging subset of patients.

Gastric varices (GVs) are reported in up to 20% of patients with portal hypertension, and bleeding is often more severe and challenging than esophageal variceal bleeding. Data are limited on prophylaxis of GV bleeding or management in the acute setting, and different techniques are used. This study evaluated outcomes after EUS-guided placement of coils in combination with thrombin to manage GVs.

We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with combination EUS-guided therapy with coils and thrombin between October 2015 and February 2020.

Twenty patients underwent 33 procedures for GV therapy; 16 of 20 (80%) had type 1 isolated GVs and 4 patients had type 2 gastroesophageal varices. The median follow-up was 842 days (interquartile range [IQR], 483-961). Seventeen patients (85%) had underlying cirrhosis, the most common etiologies being alcohol-related liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The median Child-Pugh score was 6 (IQR, 5-7). In 11 patients (55%), the indication was secondary prophylaxis to prevent recurrent bleeding; in 2 of 20 patients (10%), the bleeding was acute. Technical success was achieved in 19 patients (95%). During follow-up, the obliteration of flow within the varices was achieved in 17 patients (85%). The 6-week survival rate was 100%, and 2 adverse events, recurrent bleeding at day 5 and at day 37, were reported; both recurrent bleeding events were successfully managed endoscopically.

EUS-guided GV obliteration combining coil placement with thrombin, in our experience, was technically safe with good medium-term efficacy. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing different treatment strategies is desirable to understand options better.

Nonselective beta blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic therapies are currently recommended by guidelines for preventing the first variceal bleed in patients with high-risk varices. However, there is a lack of detailed treatment strategies for patients who are intolerant to both NSBBs and endoscopic approaches. Our study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of variceal embolization as a primary prophylaxis method in cirrhosis patients who are not suitable candidates for NSBBs or endoscopic treatments.

The study included 43 cirrhotic patients with high-risk varices who were candidates for primary prophylaxis against variceal bleeding. These patients underwent variceal embolization at the Xijing Hospital between January 2020 and June 2022. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of bleeding from varices, and the secondary endpoints were the recurrence of varices and the emergence of complications.

The procedure of variceal embolization had a success rate of 93.0% (40 out of 43 patients). Over a 2-year follow-up period, the rate of variceal bleeding was 11.6% (5 out of 43 patients), the recurrence rate of varices was 14.0% (6 out of 43 patients), and the rate of severe complications was limited to 2.3% (1 out of 43 patients).

Variceal embolization is a viable primary prophylactic intervention for cirrhotic patients who are at risk of variceal bleeding when standard treatments, such as NSBBs or endoscopic therapies, are difficult to perform.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided injection of cyanoacrylate (CYA) for primary prophylaxis (PP) of gastric varices (GV) is controversial. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of this intervention.

Patients treated for PP of GV bleeding by EUS injection of CYA with or without coils were identified. Endoscopic techniques, outcomes, and adverse events (AEs) were reviewed and compared with a group treated for secondary prophylaxis (SP). Patients were followed until: (i) loss to follow-up; (ii) GV bleeding; (iii) interventional radiology or surgery decompression; (iv) liver transplant; or (v) death or comfort care.

One hundred and nineteen patients (61 men; mean 59 ± 12 years) underwent EUS for PP (n = 24) or SP (n = 95). The PP group was treated with CYA alone (n = 18) or with coils (n = 4). Eight (33%) mild (n = 6) or moderate (n = 2) AEs and no index GV bleeding occurred during a mean of 6.1 ± 5.9 months follow-up. Repeat EUS in 22 (92%) PP patients showed 7 (32%) residual GVs, which were retreated with CYA alone (n = 6) or with coils (n = 1). Two (29%) mild (n = 1) or moderate (n = 1) AEs occurred after repeat EUS and 1/22 (5%) index GV bleed occurred during a mean 23 ± 25 months follow-up. Compared to the SP group, the PP group had lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (P = 0.03), fewer GV stigmata (P < 0.001), required less CYA (P = 0.019) during index EUS, and had a longer time between index and surveillance EUS (P = 0.014). The incidence of AEs and GV bleeding between the two groups were similar.

Posttreatment GV bleeding and AEs are similar following EUS-guided primary and secondary GV prophylaxis.

Cirrhosis is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. One of the most serious and unpredictable complication of cirrhosis, with a high mortality rate, is bleeding from esophagogastric varices. Endoscopic screening of varices followed by primary prophylactic treatment with beta blockers or band ligation in the presence of large esophageal varices will reduce the variceal bleeding rates and thereby reduce mortality risks in those with advanced cirrhosis. There is a paucity of data on primary prophylaxis of gastric varices but secondary prophylaxis includes glue injection, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration, or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting with coil embolization.

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Over the past decade, significant advancements in pharmacological, endoscopic, and radiographic treatments have emerged in the management of patients with cirrhosis and esophagogastric varices or variceal hemorrhage. These advances have been in several areas, including the role of screening and primary prophylaxis (preventing an initial variceal bleed), evaluation and management of acute esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage, and in preventing variceal rebleeding. Therefore, we believe there is a need for an updated, evidence-based "narrative review" on this important clinical topic that will be relevant for internists, hospitalists, intensive care unit physicians, and those in training. We believe the guidance presented in this narrative review will enhance daily medical practice of health care professionals and has the potential to improve quality of care for these complex patients.

It has been suggested that a relevant proportion of patients do not respond to nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB)s, which raises questions regarding the need for individualized therapy. The existence of potential heterogeneity in the treatment response can be assessed using the variability ratio (VR) of the outcome measurement (in this case, HVPG) between the treated and placebo groups. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the potential heterogeneity in the portal pressure response to NSBBs.

After a systematic search, we quantified the heterogeneity of treatment response with the VR between the treatment and control groups, with VR > 1 indicating potential heterogeneity. We used a similar approach to compare carvedilol with propranolol and statins with placebo.

We identified 18 studies that included 965 patients. A comparison between beta-blockers and placebo showed a pooled VR of 0.99 (95% CI:0.87-1.14), which suggests a homogeneous HVPG response to NSBB at the individual patient level (ie, no evidence to support that some patients responded to beta-blockers and others did not). For the comparison between carvedilol and propranolol, pooled VR was 0.97 (95% CI 0.82-1.14), suggesting that carvedilol achieves a greater average response (rather than an increase in the proportion of responders). There was no evidence of a heterogeneous response to statins.

Our analysis did not support the existence of a heterogeneous patient-by-patient response to NSBBs in cirrhosis. These findings challenge the concept of personalized therapy based on portal pressure response and indicate that routine portal pressure measurement may not be necessary to guide NSBB therapy.

To standardize the diagnosis, treatment, and management of esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EVB) in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension, the Chinese Society of Hepatology, the Chinese Society of Gastroenterology, and the Chinese Society of Digestive Endoscopy of the Chinese Medical Association brought together relevant experts, reviewed the latest national and international progress in clinical research on EVB in cirrhotic portal hypertension, and followed evidence-based medicine to update the Guidelines on the Management of EVB in Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension. The guidelines provide recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of EVB in cirrhotic portal hypertension and with the aim to improve the level of clinical treatment of EVB in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension.

N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NB2CYA) is frequently used in the treatment of variceal hemorrhage with a success rate in hemostatic control of 87%-100%. Although rare, complications include esophageal perforation, infection, or arterial and venous embolization. We present the case of a 67-year-old male with chronic ethanolic liver disease hospitalized due to melena and hematemesis. He had anemia requiring transfusion support, octreotide, and pantoprazole infusion. Upper digestive endoscopy was performed showing gastric varices with a hemorrhagic rupture point treated with cyanoacrylate. The patient developed respiratory failure over the next 48 hours with chest computed tomography (CT) angiography showing several dense, scattered linear images, with arterial vascular trajectories suggestive of cyanoacrylate embolization. It was decided to provide ventilatory support with invasive mechanical ventilation, initiate systemic corticosteroid therapy, and transfer the patient to the intensive care unit (ICU). The patient was ventilated for 11 days with initial favorable evolution, but after two episodes of decompensation of his chronic liver disease (CLD) (hepatic encephalopathy and hepatorenal syndrome) and a new nosocomial pneumonia, he ended up dying. The present case illustrates a rare but potentially fatal complication associated with cyanoacrylate, highlighting the importance of a high suspicion index in cases of respiratory failure and dyspnea after this therapy.

We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NWM) to examine comparative effectiveness of non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) on prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (GVB) and mortality benefit.

MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from inception to July 3, 2021. Outcomes of interest included primary/secondary prophylaxis of GVB, failure to achieve hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) decremental response, liver-related and all-cause mortality. A Bayesian NWM was performed to derive relative risk (RR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The ranking probability of each NSBB was assessed by surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Thirty-three RCTs including 3,188 cirrhosis patients with gastroesophageal varices were included. Compared with placebo, nadolol ranked first for reducing variceal bleeding [RR:0.25, (95% CrI:0.11-0.51); SUCRA:0.898], followed by carvedilol [RR:0.33, (95% CrI: 0.11-0.88); SUCRA:0.692] and propranolol [RR:0.52, (95% CrI:0.37-0.75); SUCRA:0.405]. Carvedilol was more effective than propranolol in achieving HVPG decremental response [RR:0.43, (95% CrI: 0.26-0.69)]. Carvedilol ranked first for reducing all-cause mortality [RR: 0.32, (95% CrI:0.17-0.57); SUCRA:0.963), followed by nadolol [RR:0.48, (95% CI:0.29-0.77); SUCRA:0.688], and propranolol [RR:0.77, (95% CI:0.58-1.02); SUCRA: 0.337]. Similar findings were observed for liver-related mortality. Carvedilol ranked the safest. The RR of adverse events was 4.38, (95% CrI:0.33-161.4); SUCRA:0.530, followed by propranolol [RR: 7.54, (95% CrI:1.90-47.89); SUCRA:0.360], and nadolol [RR: 18.24, (95% CrI:91.51-390.90); SUCRA:0.158].

Carvedilol is the preferred NSBB with better survival benefit and lower occurrence of adverse events among patients with gastroesophageal varices.

Gastric varices (GVs) are conventionally managed with endoscopic cyanoacrylate (E-CYA) glue injection. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapy using combination of coils and CYA glue (EUS-CG) is a relatively recent modality. There is limited data comparing the two techniques.

This international multicentre study included patients with GV undergoing endotherapy from two Indian and two Italian tertiary care centres. Patients undergoing EUS-CG were compared with propensity-matched E-CYA cases from a cohort of 218 patients. Procedural details such as amount of glue, number of coils used, number of sessions required for obliteration, bleeding after index procedure rates and need for re-intervention were noted.

Of 276 patients, 58 (male 42, 72.4%; mean age-44.3 ± 12.1 years) underwent EUS-CG and were compared with 118 propensity-matched cases of E-CYA. In the EUS-CG arm, complete obliteration at 4 weeks was noted in 54 (93.1%) cases. Compared to the E-CYA cohort, EUS-CG arm showed significantly lower number of session (1.0 vs. 1.5; p < 0.0001) requirement, lower subsequent-bleeding episodes (13.8% vs. 39.1%; p < 0.0001) and lower re-intervention (12.1% vs. 50.4%; p < 0.001) rates. On multivariable regression analysis, size of the varix (aOR-1.17; CI 1.08-1.26) and technique of therapy (aOR-14.71; CI 4.32-50.0) were significant predictors of re-bleeding. A maximum GV size >17.5 mm had a 69% predictive accuracy for need for re-intervention.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy of GV using coil and CYA glue is a safe technique with better efficacy and lower re-bleeding rates on follow-up compared to the conventional endoscopic CYA therapy.

The aim of this study is to investigate risk factors associated with gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding after endoscopic combined treatment.

Patients who had liver cirrhosis and underwent endoscopic treatment to prevent variceal rebleeding were retrospectively recruited. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement and CT examination of portal vein system were performed before endoscopic treatment. Endoscopic obturation for gastric varices and ligation for esophageal varices were performed simultaneously at the first treatment.

One hundred and sixty-five patients were enrolled, and after the first endoscopic treatment, recurrent hemorrhage occurred in 39 patients (23.6%) during 1-year follow-up. Compared to the non-rebleeding group, HVPG was significantly higher (18 mmHg vs.14 mmHg, P = 0.024) and more patients had HVPG exceeding 18 mmHg (51.3% vs.31.0%, P = 0.021) in the rebleeding group. No significant difference was found in other clinical and laboratory data between two groups (P > 0.05 for all). By a logistic regression analysis, high HVPG was the only risk factor associated with failure of endoscopic combined therapy (OR = 1.071, 95%CI, 1.005-1.141, P = 0.035).

The poor efficacy of endoscopic treatment to prevent variceal rebleeding was associated with high HVPG. Therefore, other therapeutic options should be considered for the rebleeding patients with high HVPG.

Therapeutic EUS has witnessed exponential growth in the last decade, but it has been considered investigational until recently. An increasing body of good-quality evidence is now demonstrating clear advantages over established alternatives, adding therapeutic EUS to management algorithms of complex hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. In this review, the available evidence and clinical role of therapeutic EUS in established and evolving applications will be discussed. A Graphical Summary for each scenario will provide (1) technical steps, (2) anatomical sketch, (3) best-supporting evidence, and (4) role in changing current and future GI practice. Therapeutic EUS has accepted well-established applications such as drainage of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections, biliary drainage in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and treatment of acute cholecystitis in unfit-for-surgery patients. In addition, good-quality evidence on several emerging indications (e.g., treatment of gastric outlet obstruction, local ablation of pancreatic solid lesions, etc.) is promising. Specific emphasis will be given to how these technical innovations have changed management paradigms and algorithms and expanded the possibilities of gastroenterologists to provide therapeutic solutions to old and emerging clinical needs. Therapeutic EUS is cementing its role in everyday practice, radically changing the treatment of different HPB diseases and other conditions (e.g., GI obstruction). The development of dedicated accessories and increased training opportunities will expand the ability of gastroenterologists to deliver highly effective yet minimally invasive therapies, potentially translating into a better quality of life, especially for oncological and fragile patients.

Gastric varices (GV) are present in 25% of cirrhotic patients with high rates of rebleeding and mortality. Data on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment in severe liver disease (model for end stage liver disease sodium [MELD-Na] >18 and Child-Turcotte-Pugh [CTP] C with GV) are scarce. Thus, we performed a retrospective comparison of endoscopic glue injection with EUS-guided therapy in cirrhotic patients with large GV.

A retrospective study was performed in the tertiary hospitals of India. A total of 80 patients were recruited. The inclusion criteria were gastroesophageal varices type 2, isolated gastric varices type 1, bleeding within 6 weeks, size of GV >10 mm, and a MELD-Na >18. Treatment outcomes and complications of endoscopic glue injection and EUS-guided GV therapy were compared.

In this study, the patients' age, sex, liver disease severity (CTP, MELD-Na) and clinical parameters were comparable. The median number of procedures, injected glue volume, complications, and GV obturation were better in the EUS group, respectively. On subgroup analysis of the EUS method (e.g., direct gastric fundus vs. paragastric collateral [PGC] coil placement), PGC coil placement showed decreased coil requirement, less injected glue volume, decreased luminal coil extrusion, and increased successful GV obturation.

EUS-guided treatment is more efficient and safer, and requires a smaller number of treatment sessions, as compared to endoscopic treatment in severe liver disease patients with large GV. Furthermore, PGC coil placement increases the complete obliteration of GV.

The role of endoscopy in the ligation of gastric varices (GV) remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) using large-volume ligators for the management of non-bleeding GV in patients with cirrhosis.

One hundred fifty-eight patients with non-bleeding GV due to cirrhosis were divided randomly into 2 groups: the EBL group and the endoscopic variceal obturation (EVO) group. The EBL group underwent EBL with large-volume ligators and the EVO group underwent tissue glue injection for the treatment of GV. Follow-up endoscopy was performed 3 to 4 weeks after endoscopic treatment. Patients were followed up for ≥6 months after treatment. Eradication, complication, and recurrence rates were evaluated and compared between groups.

The type and size of GV were similar in both groups. No significant difference was found in the mean number of treatment sessions or eradication and recurrence rates after 6 months. Ulcer bleeding occurred in 2 EBL patients (2.50%) after ligation, whereas 8 EVO patients (10.25%) experienced bleeding due to glue extrusion. The bleeding rate after endoscopic treatment significantly differed between the groups. In the EVO group, 1 patient developed renal embolism after injection and 2 patients developed sepsis. The prevalence of postoperative fever was significantly higher in the EVO group than in the EBL group.

Large-volume band ligators have similar efficacy to tissue glue for eradicating GV, however, the former is safer. Nevertheless, multicenter studies are needed to further confirm these results.

Portal hypertension is the cause of the clinical complications associated with cirrhosis. The primary complications of portal hypertension are ascites, acute variceal bleed, and hepatic encephalopathy. Hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement remains the gold standard test for diagnosing cirrhosis-related portal hypertension. Hepatic venous pressure gradient more than 10 mmHg is associated with an increased risk of complications and is termed clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). Clinical, laboratory, and imaging methods can also aid in diagnosing CSPH non-invasively. Recently, deep learning methods have been demonstrated to diagnose CSPH effectively. The management of portal hypertension is always individualized and is dependent on the etiology, the availability of therapies, and the degree of portal hypertension complications. In this review, we discuss the diagnosis and management of cirrhosis-related portal hypertension in detail. Also, we highlight the history of portal hypertension and future research areas in portal hypertension.

In natural history of cirrhosis, variceal bleeding is one of the earliest decompensations to happen, and, if adequately managed, survival is improved. Gastric varices have challenges in management due to their location, size and propensity to bleed. The N-butyl 2-cyanoacrylate (NBC) glue application has emerged as definitive therapy in bleeding gastric varices. Here we present our experience with use of NBC in management of gastric and difficult cases of esophageal varices.

A total of 75 patients underwent NBC glue application for varices which included 69 patients with gastric varices and six patients with esophageal varices. All the procedures were done with flexible endoscope and sclerotherapy needle after due precautionary measures.

Hemostasis was varices in all patients after endotherapy. The average quantity of glue used was 2.75±0.95 mL. Complete obliteration with single session of NBC application was achieved in 55 patients. Re-bleeding occurred in five patients within 5 days of index event. 20 patients had in-hospital mortality but none was related to gastrointestinal bleeding. 6-week all-cause mortality was 26 (35%).

Glue therapy with NBC is a life saving therapy in patients with bleeding gastric varices and esophageal varices not amenable to endoscopic variceal ligation or sclerotherapy.

Cirrhosis consists of two main stages: compensated (asymptomatic) and decompensated, the latter with a higher mortality. Variceal hemorrhage, together with ascites or encephalopathy, or both, are events that define cirrhosis decompensation and are driven by portal hypertension. The approach and management of patients with compensated cirrhosis has been mostly focused on preventing variceal hemorrhage in those who have high-risk varices on endoscopy. Recent studies suggest a paradigm shift aimed at preventing all decompensating events, not only variceal hemorrhage, in patients with cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension identified via noninvasive measures such as liver stiffness and platelet count. In these patients, nonselective beta-blockers have been shown to prevent ascites (the most common decompensating event) and variceal growth. Variceal hemorrhage has a high mortality rate and even though advances in diagnostic approach and standard of care over the past decades have led to a decrease in mortality, it is still high with a 6-week mortality rate of 15-20%. Survival has improved with the preemptive placement of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients at high risk of failing standard therapy. In this review, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology and bases for therapy of portal hypertension and varices, the diagnostic approach and management of compensated cirrhosis with clinically significant portal hypertension, and the management of acute variceal hemorrhage as well as prevention strategies for variceal hemorrhage recurrence.

Gastric varices (GV) are a type of ectopic varix, which is a natural portosystemic shunt occurring in response to an increase in intrahepatic vascular resistance, mostly commonly from portal hypertension. GV are present in up to 20% of patients with portal hypertension. Although oesophageal varices are more common than GV, and oesophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) happens more often than gastric variceal bleeding (GVB), GVB tends to be more severe, to have higher associated hospital costs, length of stay, higher rebleeding rates and have higher mortality. Mortality rates associated with variceal bleeding range from 6% in EVB to 20%-55% in GVB. Risk factors for GV haemorrhage include location, size, severity of liver failure, presence of variceal red spots, and presence of HCC (hepatocellular carcinoma). This manuscript will review endoscopic and non-endoscopic treatment of GV.

There is significant heterogeneity between gastroesophageal varices (GOV2) and isolated gastric varices (IGV1). The data on the difference between GOV2 and IGV1 are limited.

To determine the etiology, clinical profiles, endoscopic findings, imaging signs, portosystemic collaterals in patients with GOV2 and IGV1.

Medical records of 252 patients with gastric fundal varices were retrospectively collected, and computed tomography images were analyzed.

Significant differences in routine blood examination, Child-Pugh classification and MELD scores were found between GOV2 and IGV1. The incidence of peptic ulcers in patients with IGV1 (26.55%) was higher than that of GOV2 (11.01%), while portal hypertensive gastropathy was more commonly found in patients with GOV2 (22.02%) than in those with IGV1 (3.54%). Typical radiological signs of cirrhotic liver were more commonly observed in patients with GOV2 than in those with IGV1. In patients with GOV2, the main afferent vessels were via the left gastric vein (LGV) (97.94%) and short gastric vein (SGV) (39.18%). In patients with IGV1, the main afferent vessels were via the LGV (75.61%), SGV (63.41%) and posterior gastric vein (PGV) (43.90%). In IGV1 patients with pancreatic diseases, spleno-gastromental-superior mesenteric shunt (48.15%) was a major collateral vessel. In patients with fundic varices, the sizes of gastric/esophageal varices were positively correlated with afferent vessels (LGVs and PGVs) and efferent vessels (gastrorenal shunts). The size of the esophageal varices was negatively correlated with gastrorenal shunts in GOV2 patients.

Significant heterogeneity in the etiology and vascular changes between GOV2 and IGV1 is useful in making therapeutic decisions.

Gastro-oesophageal varices are the major clinical manifestations of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Although less frequent than oesophageal varices (EV), bleeding from gastric varices (GV) is generally more severe and associated with higher mortality and a greater risk to rebleed. According to Sarin's classification, GVs are categorized into four types based on their location within the stomach and relationship with EV. Currently, treatment options for the management of GV include beta-blockers, endoscopic band ligation, endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection, EUS-guided coil/cyanoacrylate injection, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts and balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration. The best treatment strategy of GV remains controversial because of the heterogeneity of GV, lack of high-quality data and suboptimal trial design of the studies available. The proper treatment algorithm may require adequate endoscopic and imaging evaluation by a multidisciplinary team with multiple treatment options available. This review describes the hemodynamic features of GV, pharmacological, endoscopic and interventional radiological treatment options for GV.

Gastric variceal bleeding is more severe than esophageal variceal bleeding, and is associated with higher rebleeding and mortality rates. The benefits of endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil deployment alone for treating gastric varices, compared with concomitant cyanoacrylate injection, remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the outcomes of both modalities.

Data of patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil deployment with/without concomitant cyanoacrylate injection for gastric varices between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed. The rates of rebleeding, reintervention, and survival were assessed.

Twenty-eight patients (mean age, 55.9 ± 12.9 years; 17 men) underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil deployment, either alone (EUS-coil) (n = 19) or with cyanoacrylate injection (EUS-coil/CYA) (n = 9), to treat cardiofundal varices. Among the 20 patients treated for secondary prophylaxis, including 3 actively bleeding patients (11 via EUS-coil, 9 with EUS-coil/CYA), no significant differences were observed in the rates of rebleeding (1 vs. 2), reintervention (1 vs. 0) or adverse events (1 vs. 1) (all P > 0.05). The 6-month, 1-year, and 3-year overall survival rates did not differ between the treatment groups (crude survival ratio: 76.9% vs. 77.8%; survival rates: 0.923, 0.682, and 0.615 vs. 0.778 for each year; log-rank = 0.227; P = 0.633). In patients treated for primary prophylaxis (n = 8; all via EUS-coil alone), no bleeding episodes were observed after 433 days of follow-up; however, one patient required reintervention for the reappearance of varices without bleeding.

EUS-coil alone was not inferior to EUS-coil/CYA combination concerning rebleeding, reintervention, or survival.

Gastric variceal bleeding has a high mortality. Endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection is the standard therapy; however, rebleeding and unexpected adverse events, such as injection sites ulcers and distal glue embolisms, are pitfalls of this therapy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided endovascular therapies offer a safer and more practical alternative for the treatment of gastric varices. EUS-guided combined therapy with coiling and cyanoacrylate injection is the most promising alternative with high obliteration rates and fewer adverse events reported. The authors reviewed the latest available data for all endoscopic therapies proposed for the management of gastric varices in patients with chronic liver disease.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common clinical entity. Expert management of acute GIB requires collaborative care between internists and other specialists. This article reviews the presentation, treatment, and prevention of acute GIB using recommendations from recent guidelines and expert panel reviews. The article acknowledges the pivotal role played by primary care providers in the inpatient and outpatient management of acute GIB.

Patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices bleed at a yearly rate of 5%-15%, and, when variceal hemorrhage develops, mortality reaches 20%. Patients are deemed at high risk of bleeding when they present with medium or large-sized varices, when they have red signs on varices of any size and when they are classified as Child-Pugh C and have varices of any size. In order to avoid variceal bleeding and death, individuals with cirrhosis at high risk of bleeding must undergo primary prophylaxis, for which currently recommended strategies are the use of traditional non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) (i.e., propranolol or nadolol), carvedilol (a NSBB with additional alpha-adrenergic blocking effect) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). The superiority of one of these alternatives over the others is controversial. While EVL might be superior to pharmacological therapy regarding the prevention of the first bleeding episode, either traditional NSBBs or carvedilol seem to play a more prominent role in mortality reduction, probably due to their capacity of preventing other complications of cirrhosis through the decrease in portal hypertension. A sequential strategy, in which patients unresponsive to pharmacological therapy would be submitted to endoscopic treatment, or the combination of pharmacological and endoscopic strategies might be beneficial and deserve further investigation.

Percutaneous transhepatic obliteration (PTO) can facilitate antegrade embolization of variceal veins. We herein report three patients who underwent percutaneous transhepatic sclerotherapy (PTS) or percutaneous transportal outflow-vessel-occluded sclerotherapy (PTOS) for isolated gastric varices. PTS was performed in Cases 1 and 2, and PTOS was performed in Case 3. Technical success was achieved in all patients without a decline in liver function; however, lack of a therapeutic benefit with rupture of esophageal varices occurred in Case 3. Case 3 had a history of pylorus gastrectomy plus Billroth-I reconstruction for gastric cancer and multiple feeding veins existed. PTO-related procedures are good treatment options for isolated gastric varices, but clinicians should be aware of the risk of treatment failure, especially the cases which have multiple feeding veins.

Portal hypertensive bleeding is a major complication of portal hypertension (PHT) with high morbidity and mortality. A lot of advances have been made in our understanding of screening, risk stratification, and management strategies for portal hypertensive bleeding including acute variceal bleeding leading to improved overall outcomes in patients with PHT. A number of guidelines on variceal bleeding have been published by various societies in the past few years. The Indian Society of Gastroenterology (ISG) Task Force on Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) felt that it was necessary to bring out a standard practice guidance document for the use of Indian health care providers especially physicians, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists. For this purpose, an expert group meeting was convened by the ISG Task Force to deliberate on this matter and write a consensus guidance document for Indian practice. The delegates including gastroenterologists, hepatologists, radiologists, and surgeons from different parts of the country participated in the consensus development meeting at Coorg in 2018. A core group was constituted which reviewed all published literature on portal hypertensive UGIB with special reference to the Indian scenario and prepared unambiguous statements on different aspects for voting and consensus in the whole group. This consensus was produced through a modified Delphi process and reflects our current understanding and recommendations for the diagnosis and management of portal hypertensive UGIB in Indians. Intended for use by the health care providers especially gastroenterologists and hepatologists, these consensus statements provide an evidence-based approach to risk stratification, diagnosis, and management of patients with portal hypertensive bleeding.